I think natural resources like fossil fuels, drinkable water, and food may be at shortage after 300 years or even before that time. If the population rise and consumption rate continues, these resources may not be able to sustain for long.

Well BOP can be shared, but I'll need to provide some proof anyways.
Source 1http://www.worldometers.info...
This source shows the amount of water consumed in a day, which is 1.5 million liters, with 64000 liters demand increasing per year. It also says the world's population is growing by 80 million everyday, which would increase demand. In a time period of 300 years, the population should be a lot and freshwater is only roughly 3 percent of the world's total water. Desalination may be the alternative, but underground water will be finished if the current usage continues, which will turn the world into a desert with few plants able to grow. Also, desalination is a slow and inefficient process, which may not meet the demand for survival of the higher population of that time.
Source 2http://www.grida.no...
This source shows the rise of population for food demand. Also, urbanization is declining agriculture in developing countries, meaning that there is more food demand and lesser people to produce the required food. By 300 years global warming itself is predicted to grow so much to allow certain crops not to grow, as winter may be extinct at that time. If the glaciers melt then they would cause enough damage to the world's resources.
Source 3https://www.ecotricity.co.uk...
This source shows the increasing consumption of fossil fuels, which are predicted to finish in roughly 80 years if the current demand lasts. Fossil fuels take millions of years to be made, so there is no chance that this resource would be long-term.

As I mentioned in round 1, resources like fossil fuels, drinkable water and food may be at shortage after 300 years. I await Con's counter arguments.

- I shall remind Pro that the affirmative resolution is: “in approximate 300 years, important natural resources should be finished”, not “assuming the current state of affairs, in approximate 300 years, important natural resources should be finished”. A LOT can change in 300 years, maybe the human race will cease to exist for all we know. Thus, I suggest Pro attempts to argue for the his affirmative case so that I can have something to rebut. :)

I wrote in the first round that if the population rise and consumption rate 'continues', so that means if the world doesn't change much in 300 years the natural resources should be finished.
Moreover, global warming could reach new levels in 300 years. The natural resources may be depleted due to overheat (water evaporation, plant requiring water, fossil fuels burned) so that is another angle.

Preface:- I should remind the voters that the BOP is on Pro, for he is making the affirmative positive claim: “In approximate 300 years, important natural resources should be finished”, thus I am not compelled to support the counter-claim, I am only required to refute Pro’s arguments.- Also, the resolution is specifically about a worldly state of affairs 300 years from now, not necessarily with the assumption that the current state of affairs will persist till then, as the resolution clearly states.

Rebuttals:I think natural resources like fossil fuels, drinkable water, and food may be at shortage after 300 years or even before that time. If the population rise and consumption rate continues, these resources may not be able to sustain for long.- Pro has yet to support his assumption that the population will keep rising, & the current consumption rates will continue in the future. & so far, no arguments have been made to support this assumption, despite Pro being warned in the 2nd round that his case rests on providing reasons for us to believe his claim.- Pro may think that the population will keep growing &, in 300 years, important natural resources should be finished. & he may very well think that on solid ground, however, why should we be believe this too. 300 years is an awfully long time, we could be living on Mars or something, or maybe we’ll go extinct before that, or maybe a Nuclear World War will erupt eradicating most of the human race. An awful lot can happen in such a large span of time, it’s not necessary that the current trends will endure for the next 300 years, in fact, that’s unlikely!This source shows the amount of water consumed in a day, which is 1.5 million liters, with 64000 liters demand increasing per year. It also says the world's population is growing by 80 million everyday, which would increase demand. In a time period of 300 years, the population should be a lot and freshwater is only roughly 3 percent of the world's total water. Desalination may be the alternative, but underground water will be finished if the current usage continues, which will turn the world into a desert with few plants able to grow. Also, desalination is a slow and inefficient process, which may not meet the demand for survival of the higher population of that time.- Pro cites inaccurately the information provided by the source:1. It says 80 million every year, not everyday.2. There is no mention of 3% ratio.- The rest is bare assertion fallacy:> “underground water will be finished if the current usage continues”>”will turn the world into a desert with few plants able to grow”. > “desalination is a slow and inefficient process”.=> We really can’t verify if any of this is factual or just made up.- Therefore, in this entire paragraph, Pro constantly speculated what will happen in 300 years based on unsupported evidence!- Furthermore, considering the world is going towards more efficient & environmental friendly way of extrating energy, according to a study, NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) “found that water withdrawals would decrease 51 percent to 58 percent by 2050 and water consumption would be reduced by 47 percent to 55 percent” [1]. Thus, considering futuristic projections, the evidence speak against Prop’s contentions.Source 2This source shows the rise of population for food demand. Also, urbanization is declining agriculture in developing countries, meaning that there is more food demand and lesser people to produce the required food. By 300 years global warming itself is predicted to grow so much to allow certain crops not to grow, as winter may be extinct at that time. If the glaciers melt then they would cause enough damage to the world's resources.- Again Pro invokes unverifiable information, he does not bring any evidence for the said effects of global warming in the future.- Pro, in this paragraph too, makes huge assumptions & deduce thereafter, somehow, huge speculations, which we are not compelled to agree with (bare assertion fallacy), especially since there are good reasons not too. For instance, “a ground-breaking study by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory explored the feasibility and environmental impacts associated with generating 80 percent of the country’s electricity from renewable sources by 2050 and found that global warming emissions from electricity production could be reduced by approximately 81 percent” [2]. This indicates that using futuristic technologies in renewable resources will lead to a substantial decrease in global warming emissions, which is the opposite of what Pro claims.

Source 3This source shows the increasing consumption of fossil fuels, which are predicted to finish in roughly 80 years if the current demand lasts. Fossil fuels take millions of years to be made, so there is no chance that this resource would be long-term.- This could be easily refuted by mentioning the fact that there are other resources, other than fossil fuel, which are essentially unlimited, namely: renewable energy. The NREL estimated in a 2012 report (U.S. Renewable Energy Technical Potentials [3]) that the Electricity Generation Potential from renewable resources, while accounting for the technological & environmental constraints, amounts to ~482 Tw/h, 118 times the current Electricity Use.

I wrote in the first round that if the population rise and consumption rate 'continues', so that means if the world doesn't change much in 300 years the natural resources should be finished.- Pro has not supported his assumption that the population will rise & consumption rates will continue, which makes his statement a bare assertion! Thus an invalid argument.Moreover, global warming could reach new levels in 300 years. The natural resources may be depleted due to overheat (water evaporation, plant requiring water, fossil fuels burned) so that is another angle.- Again, this is also a bare assertion fallacy.

Conclusion:- Pro failed to support his case, for:1. He made the assumption that the current trends will persist throughout the next 300 years, which is a huge assumption, without any proof.2. Even if we concede this assumotion, Pro's case is still not fulfilled, for he also assumed that the current outdated processes & methods in extracting resources will persist also for the next 300 years, while the evidence clearly suggests otherwise as showed above.3. He made a series of bare assertions not supported by the sources he provided, which makes his care even weaker.- Overall, Pro failed to carry his BOP. Thus, I win the debate.=> Vote Con.

Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both forfeited a round, thus balancing out poor conduct from either side. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Con. As already noted above in my prelim comment, Pro had a huge burden to carry. The debate also went exactly as I thought it would, with Pro relying on assumptions based on current trends and Con picking away those assumptions. Pro, to his credit, did provide 3 compelling arguments supported by sources. However, Con was able to dismantle each argument since they were only assumptions and showed the unlikelihood of these trends remaining as they are now. In doing so, Con effectively rebutted Pro's contentions. For this, Con wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Both utilized an equal quantity of supporting evidence. However, Con was able to show some fault with Pro and his water consumption source, whereas Pro did no such thing. Thus, sources go to Con.

Reasons for voting decision: Unlike lord_megatron Yassine showed the logic behind his position and provided evidence of his assertions. Neither side was rude or too condescending so that's a tie. I found Yassine's side to be easier to read and understand so that's spelling and grammar.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.